Farmers’ Adoption and Perceptions of Coffee and Banana Intercropping System in Rwanda

Jules Ngango^1,

¹Department of Economics, College of Business and Economics, University of Rwanda

Cite this paper:
Jules Ngango. Farmers’ Adoption and Perceptions of Coffee and Banana Intercropping System in Rwanda. American Journal of Rural Development. 2023; 11(1):15-20. doi: 10.12691/ajrd-11-1-3

Abstract

This paper examined farmers’ perceptions of the benefits of intercropping with coffee trees and bananas and identified factors that determine the adoption decisions. The study used cross-sectional data collected from 364 farmers producing coffee and bananas in Rwanda. The analysis was done using descriptive statistics, chi-square test, ordered probit regression model, and binary logistic regression model. The Chi-square test indicates significant differences in farmers’ perceptions about the benefits of coffee‒banana intercropping system among adopters and non-adopters of the coffee-banana intercropping system. Adopters of the coffee-banana intercropping system have a significant marginally higher perception of the benefits of this cropping system. The ordered probit regression results show that age, education, land tenure, livestock ownership, and drought stress variables significantly enhance the likelihood of perceiving the benefits of coffee‒banana intercropping system. The results from the binary logistic regression model show that age, household size, and drought stress positively affect the adoption decisions for the coffee‒banana intercropping system, while gender, group membership, and farm size decrease the likelihood of adoption. Results imply the need for policy to strengthen rural education to promote and create awareness about the benefits of the coffee‒banana intercropping system.

Keywords:
Coffee–banana intercropping perceptions farming system adoption smallholder farmers Rwanda

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	M. Amare, P. Parvathi, and T. T. Nguyen, “Micro insights on the pathways to agricultural transformation: Comparative evidence from Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa,” Can. J. Agric. Econ. Can. d’agroeconomie, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 69–87, Mar. 2023.
[2]	V. Nsengimana, J. de Dieu Nsenganeza, T. Hagenimana, and W. Dekoninck, “Impact of chemical fertilizers on diversity and abundance of soil-litter arthropod communities in coffee and banana plantations in southern Rwanda,” Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain., vol. 5, p. 100215, 2023.
[3]	L. Jassogne, P. J. A. van Asten, I. Wanyama, and P. V Baret, “Perceptions and outlook on intercropping coffee with banana as an opportunity for smallholder coffee farmers in Uganda,” Int. J. Agric. Sustain., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 144–158, May 2013.
[4]	P. J. A. van Asten, L. W. I. Wairegi, D. Mukasa, and N. O. Uringi, “Agronomic and economic benefits of coffee-banana intercropping in Uganda’s smallholder farming systems,” Agric. Syst., vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 326–334, 2011.
[5]	J. Ngango and G. S. Kim, “Assessment of Technical Efficiency and Its Potential Determinants among Small-Scale Coffee Farmers in Rwanda,” Agriculture, vol. 9, no. 7. p. 161, 2019.
[6]	FAOSTAT, “Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.,” 2022. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL
[7]	C. Sebatta et al., “Pathways to sustainable intensification of the coffee-banana agroecosystems in the Mt. Elgon region,” Cogent Food Agric., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 1611051, Jan. 2019.
[8]	P. J. A. van Asten, D. Ochola, L. W. I. Wairegi, A. Nibasumba, L. T. P. Jassogne, and D. Mukasa, “Coffee-Banana Intercropping: Implementation guidance for policymakers and investors. Climate-Smart Agriculture Practice Brief. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).,” 2015.
[9]	K. Hao et al., “Optimizing shade cultivation method and irrigation amount to improve photosynthetic characteristics, bean yield, and quality of coffee in a subtropical monsoon climate,” Front. Plant Sci., vol. 13, 2022.
[10]	J. Manda, A. D. Alene, C. Gardebroek, M. Kassie, and G. Tembo, “Adoption and Impacts of Sustainable Agricultural Practices on Maize Yields and Incomes: Evidence from Rural Zambia,” J. Agric. Econ., vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 130–153, 2016.
[11]	S. Rahman, “Farmers ’ perceptions of integrated pest management ( IPM ) and determinants of adoption in vegetable production in Bangladesh,” Int. J. Pest Manag., 2020.
[12]	M. H. Kabir and R. Rainis, “Adoption and intensity of integrated pest management (IPM) vegetable farming in Bangladesh: an approach to sustainable agricultural development,” Environ. Dev. Sustain., vol. 17, pp. 1413–1429, 2015.
[13]	N. L. Ntshangase, B. Muroyiwa, and M. Sibanda, “Farmers ’ Perceptions and Factors Influencing the Adoption of No-Till Conservation Agriculture by Small-Scale Farmers in Zashuke , KwaZulu-Natal Province,” Sustainability, vol. 10, p. 555, 2018.
[14]	J. Ngango and S.-J. Hong, “Speed of adoption of intensive agricultural practices in Rwanda: A duration analysis,” Agrekon, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 43–56, 2021.
[15]	S. Ndihokubwayo et al., “Farmers’ Perception of Coffee Agroforestry Systems in an Area Targeted for Organic Certification in Burundi,” East African J. For. Agrofor., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 40–53, 2021.
[16]	S. Mpiira, M. Kipsat, P. Mose, F. Kalyango, W. Tushemereirwe, and C. Staver, “Farm diversification benefits and technology choice: A case of the coffee-banana farming system in Central Uganda,” African J. Agric. Res., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 48–60, 2023.
[17]	M. Amare, S. Asfaw, and B. Shiferaw, “Welfare impacts of maize–pigeonpea intensification in Tanzania,” Agric. Econ., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 27–43, 2012.
[18]	H. Teklewold, M. Kassie, B. Shiferaw, and G. Köhlin, “Cropping system diversification, conservation tillage and modern seed adoption in Ethiopia: Impacts on household income, agrochemical use and demand for labor,” Ecol. Econ., vol. 93, pp. 85–93, 2013.